Dispute over a land contract; Designation as a “facility” under the Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Act; Fraudulent inducement; Bank of Am, NA v Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins Co; Samuel D Begola Servs, Inc v Wild Bros

Holding that two material factual disputes remained in the parties’ dispute over a land contract, the court reversed the trial court’s order granting defendants-buyers summary disposition and remanded. The parties negotiated a purchase agreement for the sale of plaintiffs-sellers’ property, a former auto shop, through a land contract. Defendants reserved the right to revoke their offer if plaintiffs could not provide proof that the property’s soil was free from contaminants. Two years later, defendants attempted to sell the property. However, an assessment done by the prospective buyer revealed the presence of contaminants in the soil and groundwater. As a result, defendants ceased making installment payments and paying taxes on the property. Plaintiffs then sued for breach of contract and possession of the property. Defendants counterclaimed for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiffs that the trial court erred by granting defendants summary disposition because they failed to produce evidence conclusively establishing a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. It found there was “no issue of material fact that plaintiffs made a false representation to defendants.” However, until “this question of fact—whether defendants received a copy of the Phase II Report—is resolved, it will be unclear whether defendants relied on plaintiffs’ representation.” There also remained “a question of fact concerning the Phase II Report that impacts the intent element of the defendants’ claims.”